BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

UK Renewable Energy Strategy

John Hutton: As promised in my statement of 23 January 2008, I am publishing today a consultation on the ways the UK could increase renewable energy in order to meet the UK's proposed share of the EU target to achieve 20 per cent. of all Europe's energy from renewable sources in 2020.
	Increasing renewable energy is a key element of our strategy for delivering our two key goals of tackling climate change and ensuring that the UK has a secure supply of affordable energy. Measures set out in the 2007 Energy White Paper will already triple our use of renewables from 1.5 per cent. overall energy in 2006 to 5 per cent. by 2020, but we recognise we need to do more. Investment in renewable generation will help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels at a time of rising prices, particularly oil and gas. This consultation will inform the UK renewable energy strategy to be published in spring 2009, once the final EU Directive implementing the target for EU renewable energy has been agreed and the UK share decided. The consultation will run for three months and we will publish the responses this autumn.
	Currently, the proposed UK share of the EU target is to achieve 15 per cent. of our energy—electricity, heat and transport—from renewables by 2020. Our negotiating position has been to ensure that the targets contained in the draft directive are credible, by giving member states enough flexibility to deploy renewables in the most cost-effective manner. This need for credibility applies to other key parts of the draft directive, including the 10 per cent. renewable transport target for biofuels, so the UK has been pushing hard for robust sustainability criteria to be included.
	The challenge that a target of 15 per cent. renewable energy represents should not be underestimated. It may require a tenfold increase in renewable generation in the UK from 2006 levels. This might mean, for example, needing up to an extra 4,000 onshore and 3,000 offshore wind turbines, a major challenge for the supply chain and UK business. We are also conducting a feasibility study on the range of tidal power options in the Severn estuary that could provide up to 5 per cent. of UK electricity. The consultation seeks views on how we can meet the 15 per cent. target in the most cost-effective way. Regardless of our final approach, success will require action right across the economy, from industry and investors, but also from the devolved Administrations, local and regional bodies and consumers.
	This consultation outlines possible measures to facilitate a rapid expansion of renewables. It sets out ways to address the significant barriers and encourage the enormous level of investment required, signalling the business opportunities that this transformation could offer. The measures are wide ranging and include:
	extending and raising the level of the renewables obligation to encourage up to 30 to 35 per cent. of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020;
	introducing a new financial incentive mechanism to encourage a very large increase in renewable heat, including in homes and buildings;
	delivering more effective financial support for heat and electricity microgeneration technologies in homes and buildings;
	helping the planning system to deliver, by agreeing a clear deployment strategy at regional level similar to the approach established for housing;
	ensuring appropriate incentives for new electricity grid infrastructure and removing grid access as a barrier to renewable deployment;
	exploiting the full potential of energy from waste, by considering further restrictions on landfilling biomass, as far as is practical;
	requiring all biofuels to meet strict sustainability criteria, to limit adverse impacts on food prices, or other social and environmental concerns;
	encouraging the development of new renewable technologies by ensuring effective support, particularly where the UK has the potential to be a market leader;
	maximising the benefits for UK business, by providing a clear long-term policy framework, working with Regional Development Agencies to tackle key blockages, considering support for specific technologies and
	addressing skills shortages.
	In the short term, the impact of our measures on utility bills is likely to be almost zero; however, such rapid action will not come without some associated cost. The extent of these rises will depend on the cost of alternatives, particularly fossil fuels, and we can limit their effect, both on energy bills and fuel poverty by promoting an essential, ongoing role for energy efficiency. As part of this, DEFRA will publish a consultation in the autumn looking at energy efficiency across all sectors with a particular emphasis on households, and within that, what we can do to improve the efficiency of our existing housing stock.
	We are committed to developing the most cost-effective approach to delivering the scale of renewable energy required. To ensure we have investigated all the options, we are also consulting on the role that using provisions in the draft EU renewables directive relating to trading could play in reducing the overall cost to the UK of meeting the target.
	There are costs associated with increasing renewable energy. However, we believe they are worth paying for. As the Stern review concluded, the costs of tackling climate change could be far higher in the longer term than the costs of taking action now.
	The business benefits from an expansion in renewable energy in the UK could include up to 160,000 new jobs generated in the renewable energy sector by 2020. The Government's ambition is to ensure that as many of these jobs are based in the UK as possible. Annual revenues from marine energy for example could be as much as £900 million by 2020. The consultation seeks views on how we can ensure the UK receives the maximum benefit from the rapid expansion of the renewable energy sector and will be completed by a revised manufacturing strategy which we hope to bring out in the autumn.
	The Climate Change Bill reinforces our commitment to tackle climate change and the Energy White Paper 2007 sets out our broader commitments to save energy, develop cleaner energy supplies and to ensure secure supplies of energy. This consultation and the policies that will follow sit together with those on nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) to facilitate a diverse mix of low carbon energy sources. Our position on nuclear is clear, and in support of our position as a world leader in CCS we will making further announcements on the UK CCS Demonstration project and publishing a consultation on the regulation of CCS next week. The consultation seeks views on the further regulatory steps we could take to prepare for deployment of CCS.
	A copy of the UK renewable energy strategy consultation has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and published on the BERR website.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Home Loss Payments

Iain Wright: The Secretary of State has today laid regulations to update the home loss payments thresholds in section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (as amended). Home loss payments are paid at a rate of 10 per cent. of the market value to owner-occupiers who are displaced from their homes as a result of compulsory purchase or certain housing orders. They are paid in addition to the compensation awarded for the value of the property taken, which is based on the open market value of the property together with disturbance payments. Home loss payments are subject to maximum and minimum thresholds. Tenants receive a flat rate equal to the minimum payment to owner-occupiers.
	With effect from 1 September 2008, the maximum payment to owner-occupiers displaced from their home will be increased from £44,000 to £47,000 and the minimum payment will be increased from £4,400 to £4,700. The flat rate will be increased from £4,400 to £4,700.
	The period of two months between laying the regulations and commencement will give acquiring authorities reasonable notice to revise their budgets for compensation. This is similar to the notice period given in previous years for revisions to the home loss payments thresholds.

Council Tax

John Healey: On 27 March I made a statement to the House on council tax capping for eight authorities. I announced the start of a process that could lead to capping, and said that in the following weeks we would listen carefully to the representations made by the authorities concerned. Those eight authorities were Portsmouth city council, and the police authorities of Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Surrey and Warwickshire. All eight authorities were 'designated', and the Government proposed maximum 2008-09 budget requirements for each authority under the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
	All eight authorities exercised their right to challenge their proposed maximum budget requirements and made written submissions in support of their cases. I met a delegation from Portsmouth city council and was joined by the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to meet delegations from each of the seven police authorities to hear all of the cases in person.
	Having carefully considered the representations all authorities have made, both orally and in writing, and having taken into account all relevant information I can now confirm decisions on how the Government intend to proceed in each case. In putting forward their challenges, no authority has, in the Secretary of State's view, presented strong arguments as to why an excessive increase was necessary. Furthermore, no authority has demonstrated that the pressures identified acted disproportionately upon them to any significant extent compared to other authorities. We intend therefore to take action in all cases.
	After careful consideration, taking account of both service and tax impacts on residents in the areas concerned, the Secretary of State has decided on the following actions:
	to 'designate' Lincolnshire at £100,638,000 compared to the original proposed cap of £94,926,000. The authority will therefore have to reset its budget and precept;
	to cancel the designation of the police authorities of Cheshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire, but nominate all three authorities for 2008-09, designating them in 2009-10 and 2010-11. This 'designation after nomination' will provide protection to council taxpayers by limiting the authorities' capacity to increase council tax in 2009-10, and allow the authorities a phased return to setting non-excessive budget requirements. We intend to limit increases in the budget requirements of these authorities to the equivalent of an increase of 3 per cent. in council tax precept in both 2009- 10 and 2010-11. This firmly protects taxpayers but avoids the need for re-billing; and
	to cancel the designation of the police authorities of Bedfordshire, Norfolk and Surrey and of Portsmouth city council, but nominate them with a proposed notional budget requirement for each authority for 2008-09 at the level of the maximum budget requirement originally proposed when they were designated. For Bedfordshire police authority the proposed notional budget requirement is £95,790,000, for Norfolk police authority £137,901,000, for Portsmouth city council £148,530,000, and for Surrey police authority 189,622,000. Nomination and setting a notional budget for Bedfordshire, Norfolk and Surrey police authorities and for Portsmouth city council will limit these authorities' capacity to set excessive increases in future years by measuring for capping purposes future budget requirement increases against their 2008-09 notional budget requirement. This will provide their council taxpayers with extra protection in future years.
	My officials are writing to all authorities today informing them of these decisions. Subject to approval of an order I am laying before the House today, Lincolnshire police authority will need to re-set its budget requirement and precept. This means that its residents will be re-billed for a lower council tax.
	The three authorities subject to designation after nomination will have an opportunity to challenge their proposed designation for 2009-10 when they are notified in due course. We intend to start this process at the same time as we commence consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement later this year.
	The four authorities nominated in 2008-09 and set a notional budget requirement have 21 days from receipt of the notification in which to challenge their proposed notional budget requirement.
	In taking this necessary action, I recognise that local government generally has done a great deal to ensure that they do not place unnecessary pressures on their council taxpayers. More than 98 per cent. of authorities did not set excessive increases—and the average Band D council tax increase in England for 2008-09 is 4.0 per cent., the lowest increase for 14 years and the second lowest ever.
	There is no excuse for excessive increases in council tax, and authorities should be in no doubt that the Government will use its full range of capping powers to deal with excessive increases and protect council tax payers in future years.

Housing and Regeneration Bill (Contingency Fund)

Caroline Flint: The Department for Communities and Local Government has obtained approval for an advance from the contingencies fund to allow the early recruitment and appointment of the boards and senior executives with support arrangements, for the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and the Tenant Services Authority (TSA) before Royal Assent.
	The Homes and Communities Agency will bring together the current work and programmes of the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and a significant part of Communities and Local Government's own housing programmes.
	The Tenant Services Authority will encompass the current regulatory functions of the Housing Corporation and implement the recommendations of the Cave review.
	Bringing forward this expenditure through a contingencies fund advance will accelerate the introduction of the new agencies so they can begin to deliver their programmes more expeditiously. It will also enable efficiency savings to be achieved earlier and will provide significant reductions in public spending.
	An earlier advance of £930,000 was approved to cover the costs of recruiting the chairs and chief executives of HCA and TSA as well as their salary and support costs. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £430,000 for these new services will be sought in the Department's 2008-09 winter supplementary estimate for Communities and Local Government. Pending that approval and Royal Assent of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, urgent expenditure estimated at £430,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.

Local Government

John Healey: On 2 April 2008, I laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement on provisional payments under the three-year Local Authority Business Growth Incentives scheme (LABGI). I am now in a position to announce the final payments, which will be made shortly. These payments include reward for Years 1 and 2 of the scheme and new payments for Year 3 of the scheme, distributing a total of approximately £296 million to 371 local authorities in England.
	Authorities were given until 16 May 2008 to comment on the methodology outlined on 2 April 2008. The Department received 28 responses, and the Valuation Office Agency received 59 enquiries directly. Most queries sought clarification of how the calculations had been performed or about data which had been used, timing of payments or confirmation that their proposed allocation was correct, whilst a few responses raised specific points on the methodology.
	We have considered all responses received, and I am content that the published methodology has been correctly applied. I do not, therefore, propose to amend the methodology as published in the technical note (http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/labgi/technote0708.pdf), or the way in which it has been applied. However, in a small number of cases, the proposed payment has been adjusted in response to a specific point raised by an authority or in relation to a previous overpayment.
	Details of the payments to be made to each qualifying authority under the Government's proposals can be found at: http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/labgi/seconddtmn0708.pdf.
	As a result of the adjustments made, approximately £101 million remains to be distributed and this will be retained as a contingency, as I explained on 2 April (Official Report, Column 56WS).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Diplomatic Missions (Traffic Violation Fines: 2007)

David Miliband: In 2007, there were 6,241 recorded outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom. These totalled £656,275. In March this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned, giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result of subsequent payments totalling £27,300 and formal appeals lodged, there remains a total of 5,093 (£538,745) unpaid fines for 2007. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have outstanding fines totalling £1,000 or more:
	
		
			 Diplomatic mission / international organisation Number of fines outstanding (excluding congestion charge) Amount(£) 
			 Sudan 696 75,100 
			 Saudi Arabia 382 38,730 
			 Kazakhstan 280 28,180 
			 China 243 26,230 
			 UAE 225 24,670 
			 France 195 20,920 
			 Guinea 168 18,220 
			 Egypt 167 18,140 
			 Turkey 140 15,360 
			 Russia 130 14,160 
			 Libya 132 13,450 
			 Cyprus 118 12,450 
			 Nigeria 97 11,430 
			 Afghanistan 108 11,010 
			 Cote d'lvoire 72 8,170 
			 Romania 78 8,100 
			 Greece 78 7,940 
			 Georgia 69 7,610 
			 Hungary 69 7,100 
			 Malaysia 64 6,960 
			 Mozambique 64 6830 
			 Tunisia 62 6700 
			 Uzbekistan 62 6550 
			 Zambia 63 6310 
			 Pakistan 53 6260 
			 Jordan 55 5990 
			 Algeria 67 5820 
			 Iran 56 5690 
			 Senegal 55 5290 
			 Oman 45 5090 
			 Ukraine 47 4880 
			 Ghana 42 4140 
			 Kenya 35 3940 
			 USA 36 3660 
			 Bangladesh 31 3530 
			 Liberia 31 3480 
			 Germany 32 3250 
			 Iraq 27 3090 
			 Bulgaria 29 3070 
			 Albania 28 2840 
			 Lithuania 28 2740 
			 North Korea 31 2590 
			 Equatorial Guinea 25 2440 
			 Lesotho 18 2330 
			 Yemen 22 2260 
			 Ethiopia 21 2210 
			 Tanzania 19 2170 
			 International Maritime Org. 20 2010 
			 Poland 19 2000 
			 Belgium 19 1900 
			 Kuwait 18 1900 
			 Syria 17 1810 
			 Zimbabwe 17 1760 
			 Swaziland 16 1740 
			 Thailand 17 1730 
			 Honduras 17 1660 
			 Mauritius 13 1580 
			 Morocco 14 1510 
			 Italy 14 1460 
			 South Africa 12 1460 
			 Jamaica 16 1420 
			 Cameroon 13 1350 
			 Kyrgyzstan 13 1260 
			 Slovak Republic 12 1220 
			 Vietnam 9 1090 
			 Mongolia 10 1060 
			 Moldova 11 1060 
			 Botswana 10 1020 
			 Malawi 9 1020 
			 Totals 4933 520,100 
		
	
	Congestion Charge
	The number of outstanding fines incurred by diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom for non-payment of the London congestion charge since its introduction in February 2003 until 14 May 2008 was 175,482. The table below shows the 10 diplomatic missions with the highest value of outstanding fines:
	
		
			 Mission Number of fines outstanding Value (£) 
			 USA 23,188 2,347,205 
			 Japan 13,062 1,334,560 
			 Russian Federation 12,765 1,308,720 
			 Germany 11,213 1,149,050 
			 Nigeria 11,096 1,120,650 
			 Sudan 7,984 793,300 
			 Kenya 5,084 502,630 
			 Tanzania 4,654 461,080 
			 India 3,949 409,360 
			 South Africa 4,098 406,480

Diplomatic Missions (Non-Domestic Rates)

David Miliband: The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates requested from them. They are obliged to pay only 6 per cent. of the total national non-domestic rates (NNDR) value, which represents payment for specific services such as street cleaning, lighting, maintenance and fire services. The total amount outstanding from all diplomatic missions is approximately £424,700.51. However, as at 31 March 2008 the missions listed below owed over £10,000 in NNDR. One additional diplomatic mission, which owes £10,000 or more in NNDR, has made arrangements with the Valuation Office Agency to clear their outstanding debt and has not been included in this list:
	
		
			 Country Amount (£) 
			 Algeria 67,503.84 
			 Zimbabwe 66,993.48 
			 Cameroon 44,124.69 
			 Bangladesh 37,555.49 
			 Cote d'lvoire 37,056.99 
			 Malawi 27,773.58 
			 Ukraine 18,535.85 
			 Tunisia 17,212.08 
			 Tanzania 11,380.76 
			 Total 328,136.76

Diplomatic Immunity (Serious Offences)

David Miliband: In 2007, 20 serious offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 'Serious offences' are defined as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment. Some 24,000 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom.
	The table below lists those foreign missions whose diplomats allegedly committed serious offences and the type of offence from 2003-2007:
	
		
			 2003 
			 Activities inconsistent with diplomatic status (bribery) 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Driving under the influence of alcohol 
			 Algeria 1 
			 Bolivia 1 
			 Bulgaria 1 
			 Commonwealth Secretariat 1 
			 Italy 1 
			 Kuwait 1 
			 Mexico 1 
			 Other(1) 1 
			 Russia 1 
			 Rwanda 1 
			 Sierra Leone 1 
			 Ukraine 1 
			 Indecent assault 
			 South Africa 1 
			 Morrocco 1 
			 Possession of an offensive weapon 
			 Libya 1 
			 2004 
			 Arranging sham marriages 
			 Nigeria 1 
			 Driving under the influence of alcohol 
			 Angola 1 
			 Austria 1 
			 Luxembourg 1 
			 Mozambique 1 
			 Serbia and Montenegro 1 
			 Spain 1 
			 Indecent assault 
			 Congo 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Indecent assault on child 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Robbery andassault 
			 Angola 1 
			 2005 
			 Actual bodily harm 
			 Jordan 1 
			 Assault (domestic violence) 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Dangerous driving 
			 Turkey 1 
			 Driving under the influence of alcohol 
			 Angola 1 
			 Egypt 1 
			 Ghana 1 
			 Lebanon 1 
			 Peru 1 
			 Russia 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Harassment 
			 Turkey 1 
			 Theft (shoplifting) 
			 Egypt 1 
			 Equatorial Guinea 1 
			 Zambia 1 
			 Theft and robbery (of motor vehicle, driving without insurance) 
			 South Africa 1 
			 2006 
			 Attempted robbery 
			 South Africa 1 
			 Deception (going equipped to commit) 
			 Nigeria 1 
			 Driving under the influence of alcohol 
			 Kazakhstan 2 
			 Belarus 1 
			 Cote d'Ivoire 1 
			 Kuwait 1 
			 Malawi 1 
			 Oman 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 South Africa 1 
			 Driving without insurance 
			 Pakistan 1 
			 Failure to stop for police/driving without insurance and licence 
			 Kazakhstan 1 
			 Robbery 
			 South Africa 1 
			 Theft (obtaining property by deception) 
			 Ghana 1 
			 2007 
			 Dangerous driving 
			 Russia 1 
			 Domestic assault/actual bodily harm 
			 South Africa 1 
			 Driving without insurance 
			 Ghana 1 
			 Driving without insurance and driving under the influence of alcohol 
			 Malawi 2 
			 Driving under the influence of alcohol 
			 Belarus 1 
			 Georgia 1 
			 Hungary 1 
			 Israel 1 
			 Italy 1 
			 Other(1) 1 
			 Kazakhstan 1 
			 Kuwait 1 
			 Moldova 1 
			 Nigeria 1 
			 Peru 1 
			 Saudi Arabia 1 
			 Turkmenistan 1 
			 Misrepresentation (obtaining insurance by deception) 
			 Cote d'Ivoire 1 
			 Robbery and actual bodily harm 
			 Guyana 1 
			 (1) Details have been withheld because the number of diplomatic personnel in the mission(s) concerned is/are so small that disclosure would lead to the identification of the individual concerned. This would breach the data protection rights of that individual, in particular, the first data protection principle, namely, that personal data should be processed fairly. This is because the offences are only alleged to have been committed and have not been proven in a court of law. In these circumstances, Section 40 (2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act confer an absolute exemption on disclosure of this information.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Identity and Passport Service (Annual Report and Accounts 2007-08)

Meg Hillier: The "Identity and Passport Service Annual Report and Accounts 2007-08" has been laid before Parliament today and will be published shortly.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Vernon Coaker: I am pleased to announce that the sixth annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been laid before Parliament today. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search power introduced to support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit criminal cash.
	The report gives the appointed person's opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the search power and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act.
	From 1 April 2007 to the end of March 2008 over £63 million in cash was seized by police and HM Revenue and Customs Officers under powers in the Act. These sums are subject to forfeiture in the magistrates court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.

JUSTICE

Coroners (Amendment) Rules 2008

Bridget Prentice: I have today laid before Parliament the Coroners (Amendment) Rules 2008. These rules amend rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984 regarding coroners' powers to make reports to prevent future deaths, and introduce a new rule to allow coroners to share relevant information with Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) to enable them to carry out their statutory functions.
	The amended rule 43 places a new statutory duty on organisations receiving reports from coroners to respond within 56 days. Coroners must share reports and responses with those, including bereaved families, to whom they have assigned "interested person" status. They must also share reports and responses with the Lord Chancellor and they may share reports and responses with other interested organisations. Reports and responses will be centrally collated for the first time so that lessons learned can be disseminated widely where appropriate and there is national oversight more generally.
	A new rule will require coroners to notify LSCBs of any child death that is reported to them, and over which they have jurisdiction, and allow them to share information (such as reports from post-mortem examinations and documents given in evidence at an inquest) with LSCBs. This will enable LSCBs to better meet their statutory duty to conduct child death reviews and will contribute to the fulfilment of their statutory obligations more generally.
	The rule was developed in partnership with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which is responsible for legislation regarding LSCBs.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Shaun Woodward: I have received the annual report for 2007-08 of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland which is being laid before Parliament today as a Command Paper.
	Copies of the report are available from the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

Council of Europe and Western European Union (Appointment)

Gordon Brown: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union in place of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (Transfer of 2007-08 Voted Expenditure)

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has made the following written ministerial statement:
	"Parliament is to be notified that HM Treasury have provided approval for a change in the 2007-08 budgetary arrangements of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, to reflect a transfer of voted expenditure from Administration to Capital.
	RCPO's Administration budget in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be decreased by £150,000 from £20,936,000 to £20,786,000, and capital DEL will be increased by £150,000 from £1,800,000 to £1,950,000.
	The change will have no effect on the Department's overall DEL, or on its net cash requirement. The impact on resources and capital is set out in the following table.
	
		
			  Change New DEL £'000 
			  Voted Voted Total 
			 Resource -150 38,759 38,759 
			 of which:
			 Administration -150 20,786 20,786 
			 Budget -150 20,186 20,186 
			 Near Cash in RDEL
			 Capital 150 1,950 1,950 
			 Less Depreciation(1) - 600 600 
			 Total 0 40,109 40,109 
			 (1)Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending, and to include depreciation of these assets would lead to double counting. 
		
	
	The change in the capital provision within total DEL arises from some elements of the provision for an IT transition project, which had been budgeted originally as administration expenditure, being reclassified as capital spend".

TRANSPORT

Rail Network (Passenger Screening Trials)

Tom Harris: During 2006, in response to the continuing terrorist threat to the rail network, the Department for Transport carried out passenger screening trials to test the ability of available equipment and dogs to detect explosives, or traces of explosives, in an operational environment.
	The London Underground and National Railways (LUNR) passenger screening trials took place at five locations over a six-month period, with the full co-operation of the British Transport Police, Network Rail, London Underground and other stakeholders. Public attitudes surveys were conducted in parallel with the trials. Since then, we have been considering the results of the trials with key stakeholders and the implications for rail security policy.
	I am publishing a summary report of the trials on the DfT website, together with five detailed reports on the public attitudes research. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We are not publishing detailed reports on the individual trials for security reasons, due to the sensitivity of the information within them.
	At the same time, the British Transport Police is announcing enhancements to its current screening capability through the use of x-ray equipment and explosive detection dogs capable of screening moving passengers. These enhancements will build on the BTP's existing measures to screen a proportion of passengers and their bags, with minimal delay.
	The enhancements are a direct response to the conclusions from the trials which showed that:
	Screening equipment and dogs can be effective in the railway environment. However, given the very large passenger flows and thousands of entry points on the UK rail and underground networks, 100 per cent. airport-style screening is currently not feasible using today's technology.
	The public recognises the threat to the rail network, and is broadly supportive of the need for security measures, providing they are proportionate to the threat. However the public would be unlikely to accept major delays to journeys, and wants to ensure that personal privacy is protected.
	We will continue to work with the BTP and operators to assess the effectiveness and impact of these new measures and will use this evidence, and that from elsewhere in the UK and abroad, to develop further ways of keeping the travelling public secure using proportionate measures.